Discussion:
High bonnets kill pedestrians.
(too old to reply)
Keithr0
2024-01-24 06:51:25 UTC
Permalink
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
Xeno
2024-01-24 07:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
Didn't need a study to work that out. Only need to look at the past
research into car frontal design all aimed at reducing pedestrian
fatalities, then look at the *counter-trends* in commercial vehicle
design. It's going against what all the pedestrian safety research has
long suggested. It used to be the case that commercial vehicle safety
standards weren't as strict as those that applied to passenger cars -
for both occupants and pedestrians - yet both types of vehicle occupy
the same roads. Don't know if that is still the case.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Mighty Mouse
2024-01-25 05:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xeno
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
Didn't need a study to work that out.
definitely. just look at the front of that thing. it would be like being
slammed against a brick wall at 100 Klmph
Post by Xeno
Only need to look at the past research into car frontal design all
aimed at reducing pedestrian fatalities, then look at the
*counter-trends* in commercial vehicle design.
current vehicle design is going against what industry has been wanting
to achieve for decades.. lower emissions, better aerodynamics, lower
maintenance costs, (tyres, etc.,), better economy, lower fuel
consumption, etc., and the question now is when will this trend end?
surely they can't make these damn things much bigger? why would anyone
want one anyway? certainly not for practical reasons.
Post by Xeno
It's going against what all the pedestrian safety research has long
suggested. It used to be the case that commercial vehicle safety
standards weren't as strict as those that applied to passenger cars -
for both occupants and pedestrians - yet both types of vehicle occupy
the same roads. Don't know if that is still the case.
--
Have a nice day!..
Xeno
2024-01-25 08:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Xeno
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
Didn't need a study to work that out.
definitely. just look at the front of that thing. it would be like being
slammed against a brick wall at 100 Klmph
Post by Xeno
Only need to look at the past research into car frontal design all
aimed at reducing pedestrian fatalities, then look at the
*counter-trends* in commercial vehicle design.
current vehicle design is going against what industry has been wanting
to achieve for decades.. lower emissions, better aerodynamics, lower
maintenance costs, (tyres, etc.,), better economy, lower fuel
consumption, etc., and the question now is when will this trend end?
surely they can't make these damn things much bigger? why would anyone
want one anyway? certainly not for practical reasons.
As long as *some men* are born with small dicks and huge insecurities,
there will always be a market for a *bigger* penis size compensator.
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Xeno
It's going against what all the pedestrian safety research has long
suggested. It used to be the case that commercial vehicle safety
standards weren't as strict as those that applied to passenger cars -
for both occupants and pedestrians - yet both types of vehicle occupy
the same roads. Don't know if that is still the case.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
alvey
2024-01-25 20:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mighty Mouse
Post by Xeno
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
Didn't need a study to work that out.
definitely. just look at the front of that thing. it would be like being
slammed against a brick wall at 100 Klmph
Post by Xeno
Only need to look at the past research into car frontal design all
aimed at reducing pedestrian fatalities, then look at the
*counter-trends* in commercial vehicle design.
current vehicle design is going against what industry has been wanting
to achieve for decades.. lower emissions, better aerodynamics, lower
maintenance costs, (tyres, etc.,), better economy, lower fuel
consumption, etc., and the question now is when will this trend end?
surely they can't make these damn things much bigger? why would anyone
want one anyway? certainly not for practical reasons.
Maybe there's a competition in our galaxy for 'Stupidest Species'?
Noddy
2024-01-24 07:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a Mazda
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also both
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's not
as black and white as one might think. You could *also* argue that the
biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a pedestrian
crossing.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Keithr0
2024-01-25 04:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a Mazda
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also both
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User Protection
section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a pedestrian, the
other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus cyclist and
motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about injuries inflicted,
the last 2 aren't relevant.

So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for that
by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.

Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota 6.0.
The Mazda falls down on that one.

Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.

Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So, according
to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best, but the
Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can be found
in your links.

ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link that
I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
Post by Noddy
You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
not as black and white as one might think.
Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is on
the way.
Post by Noddy
You could *also* argue that the
biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?

ANCAP Vulnerable Road User Protection assessment protocol

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/8b217bb56e6a4c2ca87202debcbb4ffc1f018d92/original.pdf?1675051308
Noddy
2024-01-25 04:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User Protection
section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a pedestrian, the
other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus cyclist and
motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about injuries inflicted,
the last 2 aren't relevant.
Well, I don't know if I would agree with that. If you're talking about a
world where everyone who steps in front of a car is guaranteed to be
hit, then yeah they're irrelevant. But in a more perfect world where
some cars do better than others at preventing the pedestrian from being
hit in the first place then they're not.
Post by Keithr0
So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for that
by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.
Agreed.
Post by Keithr0
Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota 6.0.
The Mazda falls down on that one.
Indeed it does.
Post by Keithr0
Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.
Fuck all in it in fact, despite the huge difference in bonnet heights.
Post by Keithr0
Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So, according
to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best, but the
Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can be found
in your links.
They can, but the point is that not everything with a low bonnet is
going to leave a pedestrian better off in the event of contact.
Post by Keithr0
ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link that
I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
And given that real accidents do *not* take place in an environment
where the myriad of variables can be controlled, it's difficult to draw
reliable conclusions.
Post by Keithr0
Post by Noddy
You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
not as black and white as one might think.
Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is on
the way.
They are, but the local "everyday" stuff here is a long way from that.
In fact, whenever I hear someone say my Ranger is a hulk of a vehicle I
Post by Keithr0
https://ibb.co/Ct3GqgQ
If you haven't worked that out, it's a current model Ranger being
dwarfed by the current model F-150.
Post by Keithr0
Post by Noddy
You could *also* argue that the
biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a        >
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,
and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.

Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Daryl
2024-01-25 06:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User
Protection section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a
pedestrian, the other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus
cyclist and motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about
injuries inflicted, the last 2 aren't relevant.
Well, I don't know if I would agree with that. If you're talking about a
world where everyone who steps in front of a car is guaranteed to be
hit, then yeah they're irrelevant. But in a more perfect world where
some cars do better than others at preventing the pedestrian from being
hit in the first place then they're not.
Post by Keithr0
So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for
that by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.
Agreed.
Post by Keithr0
Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota
6.0. The Mazda falls down on that one.
Indeed it does.
Post by Keithr0
Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.
Fuck all in it in fact, despite the huge difference in bonnet heights.
Post by Keithr0
Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So,
according to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best,
but the Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can
be found in your links.
They can, but the point is that not everything with a low bonnet is
going to leave a pedestrian better off in the event of contact.
Post by Keithr0
ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link
that I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
And given that real accidents do *not* take place in an environment
where the myriad of variables can be controlled, it's difficult to draw
reliable conclusions.
Post by Keithr0
 > You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
 > fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
 > not as black and white as one might think.
Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is
on the way.
They are, but the local "everyday" stuff here is a long way from that.
In fact, whenever I hear someone say my Ranger is a hulk of a vehicle I
Post by Keithr0
https://ibb.co/Ct3GqgQ
If you haven't worked that out, it's a current model Ranger being
dwarfed by the current model F-150.
Post by Keithr0
 > You could *also* argue that the
 > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
 > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a
Post by Noddy
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,
and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
manufacturer.
--
Daryl
Noddy
2024-01-25 07:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
 > You could *also* argue that the
 > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
 > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,
and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
manufacturer.
Yep.

I see it all the time. In Main St Bacchus there are 4 pedestrian
crossings spread out over a 300 mtr distance, and the number of times I
see some fucking moron trying to run across the road and get caught in
the traffic within 10 mtrs of a crossing is *staggering*. And, of
course, then they do that and fuck it all up it's everyone else's fault
but theirs.

10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.

And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Xeno
2024-01-25 08:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
 > You could *also* argue that the
 > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
 > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our
roads, and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and
get hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
manufacturer.
Yep.
I see it all the time. In Main St Bacchus there are 4 pedestrian
crossings spread out over a 300 mtr distance, and the number of times I
see some fucking moron trying to run across the road and get caught in
the traffic within 10 mtrs of a crossing is *staggering*. And, of
course, then they do that and fuck it all up it's everyone else's fault
but theirs.
What do you expect in *Boganville*?
Post by Noddy
10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.
And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
Daryl
2024-01-25 11:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
 > You could *also* argue that the
 > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
 > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our
roads, and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and
get hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
manufacturer.
Yep.
I see it all the time. In Main St Bacchus there are 4 pedestrian
crossings spread out over a 300 mtr distance, and the number of times I
see some fucking moron trying to run across the road and get caught in
the traffic within 10 mtrs of a crossing is *staggering*. And, of
course, then they do that and fuck it all up it's everyone else's fault
but theirs.
10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.
And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke just
casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if the
traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing was a
force field.
There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he didn't
even looked in my direction.
--
Daryl
Noddy
2024-01-25 21:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.
And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke just
casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if the
traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing was a
force field.
There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he didn't
even looked in my direction.
It's as if some people *want* to get killed.....
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
alvey
2024-01-25 23:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.
And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke
just casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if
the traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing
was a force field.
There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he
didn't even looked in my direction.
It's as if some people *want* to get killed.....
Says man who claims to have had a significant number of crashes.
Clocky
2024-01-25 23:27:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.
And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke
just casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if
the traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing
was a force field.
There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he
didn't even looked in my direction.
It's as if some people *want* to get killed.....
Like your determination to keep bouncing your head and body off
immovable objects and road surfaces you mean?
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Xeno
2024-01-25 23:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.
And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke
just casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if
the traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing
was a force field.
There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he
didn't even looked in my direction.
It's as if some people *want* to get killed.....
Well, the way you (used to?) drive, for sure you wanted to get killed.
As it was, you merely became a cripple.
--
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)
alvey
2024-01-25 21:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
Bogan who rarely leaves Bumhole (Vic) claims to know how the rest of the
country behaves.
alvey
2024-01-25 21:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any
particular bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes
which both also have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User
Protection section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a
pedestrian, the other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus
cyclist and motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about
injuries inflicted, the last 2 aren't relevant.
Well, I don't know if I would agree with that. If you're talking about
a world where everyone who steps in front of a car is guaranteed to be
hit, then yeah they're irrelevant. But in a more perfect world where
some cars do better than others at preventing the pedestrian from
being hit in the first place then they're not.
Post by Keithr0
So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda
scores 20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points,
the D-Max 17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is
best for that by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.
Agreed.
Post by Keithr0
Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota
6.0. The Mazda falls down on that one.
Indeed it does.
Post by Keithr0
Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.
Fuck all in it in fact, despite the huge difference in bonnet heights.
Post by Keithr0
Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So,
according to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the
best, but the Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these
figures can be found in your links.
They can, but the point is that not everything with a low bonnet is
going to leave a pedestrian better off in the event of contact.
Post by Keithr0
ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link
that I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
And given that real accidents do *not* take place in an environment
where the myriad of variables can be controlled, it's difficult to
draw reliable conclusions.
Post by Keithr0
 > You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
 > fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
 > not as black and white as one might think.
Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to
here, but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram
"Trucks" are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota
Tundra is on the way.
They are, but the local "everyday" stuff here is a long way from that.
In fact, whenever I hear someone say my Ranger is a hulk of a vehicle
Post by Keithr0
https://ibb.co/Ct3GqgQ
If you haven't worked that out, it's a current model Ranger being
dwarfed by the current model F-150.
Post by Keithr0
 > You could *also* argue that the
 > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
 > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
pedestrian crossing.
Proof?
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
So they get what they deserve?
Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,
Proof?
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
lol. Coward famed for running away speaks of "personal responsibility"/
Post by Daryl
Post by Noddy
Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
manufacturer.
Staggering.
Whether pedestrians are clobbered on an Xing, an unmarked bit of road or
on a rooftop bar makes no difference to the ANCAP rating.


alvey
Daryl
2024-01-25 06:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keithr0
Post by Noddy
Post by Keithr0
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also
Post by Keithr0
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User Protection
section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a pedestrian, the
other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus cyclist and
motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about injuries inflicted,
the last 2 aren't relevant.
So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for that
by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.
Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota 6.0.
The Mazda falls down on that one.
Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.
Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So, according
to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best, but the
Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can be found
in your links.
ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link that
I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
Post by Noddy
You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
not as black and white as one might think.
Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is on
the way.
Post by Noddy
You could *also* argue that the
biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a        >
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
I wouldn't say that but IMHO its unfair to always blame car makers and
drivers for what happens when pedestrians etc don't take responsibility
for their own actions.
It simply isn't possible to design any vehicle that will 100% pedestrian
friendly, the safest was is to separate cars and pedestrians.
Pedestrians and other vulnerable road users need to be better educated
and made aware that their safety is their responsibility.
--
Daryl
Noddy
2024-01-25 07:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daryl
Post by Keithr0
 > You could *also* argue that the
 > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
 > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a
Post by Noddy
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
I wouldn't say that but IMHO its unfair to always blame car makers and
drivers for what happens when pedestrians etc don't take responsibility
for their own actions.
It simply isn't possible to design any vehicle that will 100% pedestrian
friendly, the safest was is to separate cars and pedestrians.
Agreed.
Post by Daryl
Pedestrians and other vulnerable road users need to be better educated
and made aware that their safety is their responsibility.
Absolutely.
--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.
alvey
2024-01-25 21:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Keithr0
 > You could *also* argue that the
 > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
 > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
I wouldn't say that but IMHO its unfair to always blame car makers and
drivers for what happens when pedestrians etc don't take
responsibility for their own actions.
It simply isn't possible to design any vehicle that will 100%
pedestrian friendly, the safest was is to separate cars and pedestrians.
Agreed.
Post by Daryl
Pedestrians and other vulnerable road users need to be better educated
and made aware that their safety is their responsibility.
Absolutely.
Said the person who lets his child ride passenger without wearing a
seat-belt.
Clocky
2024-01-25 23:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by Noddy
Post by Daryl
Post by Keithr0
 > You could *also* argue that the
 > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
 > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
pedestrian crossing.
So they get what they deserve?
I wouldn't say that but IMHO its unfair to always blame car makers
and drivers for what happens when pedestrians etc don't take
responsibility for their own actions.
It simply isn't possible to design any vehicle that will 100%
pedestrian friendly, the safest was is to separate cars and pedestrians.
Agreed.
Post by Daryl
Pedestrians and other vulnerable road users need to be better
educated and made aware that their safety is their responsibility.
Absolutely.
Said the person who lets his child ride passenger without wearing a
seat-belt.
Beat me too it.
--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."
Loading...